Time

Arminius · February 24, 2015, 4:33pm

I remind you of some texts on the first page of my thread “Universe and Time”:

Arminius:

[size=150]Universe and Time.[/size]

One of the basic facts of our life is that the future looks different from the past. But under a cosmological point of view this asymmetry of time is perhaps only a local phenomenon.

The universe looks somehow not as it should. That sounds strange when one considers that cosmologists have little to compare with. How do we know how the universe should look like? Nevertheless, we have developed over time a strong sense of what is „natural“, and the surrounding universe does not meet this claim. Mind you, the standard cosmological model describes - more or less successfully - the consistence of the universe and how the universe develops. Approximately 14 billion years ago the universe was hotter and denser than the interior of a star. Since then the space has been expanding, cooling, and losing density. Although this model explains virtually any observation made so far, but a number of unusual properties, especially of the early universe, suggests to us that we do not yet fully understand the development of the universe.

Perhaps there is symmetry of time in our universe.

James S Saint:

Arminius:

James S Saint:

What does “symmetry of time” mean?

“Symmetry of time” means that past and future are symmetric.

The rules of physics - the basic laws of physics - are time-symmetric. They apply to forward and backward running time equally. So the past and the future have to be the same.

We experience time as asymmetric. We say that In our universe the time of an ordered initial state to a disordered final state.

The time asymmetry violates the basic laws of physics. Perhaps the asymmetry of time is just a local problem.

I’m having to guess, but it seems that you are saying that someone is perceiving or defining “time” as a measure of decay…??

In my world:
Time ≡ the measure of relative change.

I don’t really see “symmetry” having anything to do with it.

Arminius:

What about the arrow of time?

[i]"The past is different from the future. One of the most obvious features of the macroscopic world is irreversibility: heat doesn’t flow spontaneously from cold objects to hot ones, we can turn eggs into omelets but not omelets into eggs, ice cubes melt in warm water but glasses of water don’t spontaneously give rise to ice cubes. We remember the past, but not the future; we can take actions that affect the future, but not the past (we can’t undo our mistakes). We are all born, then age, then die; never the other way around. The distinction between past and future seems to be consistent throughout the observable universe. The arrow of time is simply that distinction, pointing from past to future.

Why is there such an arrow?

Irreversible processes are summarized by the Second Law of Thermodynamics: the entropy of a closed system will (practically) never decrease into the future. It’s a bedrock foundation of modern physics.

What’s “entropy”?

Entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. A nice organized system, like an unbroken egg or a neatly-arranged pile of papers, has a low entropy; a disorganized system, like a broken egg or a scattered mess of papers, has a high entropy. Left to its own devices, entropy goes up as time passes."[/i] - Sean Carroll.
Do you believe in Sean Carroll’s point of view?

For those who don’t want to read Carroll’s texts:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvFFNkg7Mvo[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaiuZev4RWE[/youtube]

Do you agree with him?

James S Saint:

No.

Entropy is conserved in the same sense that energy is conserved, and actually for the same reason.

In a “closed energy system” we say that “energy is conserved”, because that is what “closed” means.
We never talk about a “closed entropy system” because… They don’t. The average amount of entropy throughout the entire universe per volume is a constant.

So his “Arrow of Time” is merely an “Error of Mind”.

Given a system of a particular entropic state, the highest probability will be that its entropy will not change - UNLESS there exists something to change it - either higher or lower. It really is just tautological rhetoric that confuses people into thinking that they have said something profound.

On average, non-life forms fall into higher entropy, because life IS the complex (macroscopic) effort into anentropy. But even on the subatomic level, particles form “all by themselves” into anentropic, “stable” particles. When a particle begins to form, it “freezes the chaos” and for an instant is anti-entropic. That behavior is due to the “MCR”, Maximum Rate of Change.

The universe has a maximum possible rate of changing (which is why the speed of light is a constant). Any chaos (or entropic forces) that try to exceed that MCR, only make it stronger. A particle grows because chaos wouldn’t leave it alone. Once established, chaos can’t get rid of it.

The idea that all things fall to entropy is an exaggeration and certainly not fundamental to physics or the universe.

The Eternal Universe - An Ocean of Motion.

Arminius:

James S Saint:

Arminius:

To you there is no end of the universe. And what about the time? Can you imagine that there is a backward running time?

No.

I would have to think about it more, but I’m pretty certain that there is no combination of changes that you could make that would cause a given state of the universe to roll backwards in time, even a small limited universe.

It is kind of an interesting problem, part of which would involve reversing the following;

To reverse that occurrence, one would have to reverse the vector of the photon and also reverse absolute infinity with absolute zero. The vacuum of space would become solid and mass would be a hole in that solid. And also if you did that, “2+2” would equal “0” and “2-2” would equal “4”. And that wouldn’t be a problem except for the fact that it would reverse distance addition. If you added the distance between A and B twice, you would have less distance than what is between A and B. And that would then require that you defy logic itself such that “A = !A”. And by making “A = !A”, the photon is everything but the photon. If the photon is everything but the photon, then the photon isn’t running backwards. But that is okay because running backwards is not running backwards (A=!A).

So in the long run, I suspect that an attempt to reverse time would reverse the attempt to reverse time and yield nothing.

Thus, no, I don’t believe that there can ever be any region of space wherein time is reversed. Logic cannot be used against itself (else it wasn’t logic to begin with). What we experience as the “real laws of physics” is the only possible way it can ever be anywhere at any time.

What is being called “The Arrow of Time” (whoever labeled it) is merely the effect of logic itself and can never be altered. But that is a slightly different issue than entropy reversal.

So I guess that means;
4.) our thoughts - is the problem. Once logic is fleshed out concerning physical existence, there is a total lack of alternatives. No universe can be any other way (except its current state, which must always be different).

Interesting, James. But if our thoughts are merely the problem, then it is difficult to say, that our laws of physics and especially our laws of mathematics are no problem because laws of physics and laws of mathematics are products of our thoughts, and we really don’t know with safety whether the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics reflect the realitiy or not and whether the reality is “really” real or not.

We have the subject-object-dualism. In order to overcome the subject-object-dualism Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) established his existence-philosophical concept “In-der-Welt-Sein” (“To-Be-in-the-World”) as an existential of human beings’ “Dasein”, as a human existence in the world.

James S Saint:

Sounds like a good reason to get “our thoughts” in order, doesn’t it?

If you get the thoughts straight (form a consistent, comprehensive, and relevant ontology), the proposed laws of logic, mathematics, and physics will be the accurate laws of logic, mathematics, and physics, right? But if you merely got the laws of physics right, how would you know if your thoughts are still eschewed? And the thoughts being eschewed leaves you with not even knowing whether the laws were right. You end up searching past what you were looking for.

Heidegger was a serious thinker (despite looking like a demonic psychiatrist). I’ll give him that credit along with many of that era, but with a little perspective, you have to realize that they were “breaking ground” and not entirely coherent yet in their thoughts. The object/subject dualism is not really a very complicated issue to resolve and is actually a bit irrelevant other than removing potential confusion concerning what is really going on. Once one gets his thoughts straight on what the conscious mind is and fundamentally how it works, it becomes sort of an “Oh okay, no big deal”. The fantasies of days past fade into memories of youthful, misguided musings, (“womanly”).

For example, Einstein described time as “how fast one clock turns relative to another”. That is more or less right but can be a little misleading. Time doesn’t really have anything to do with what clocks do or don’t do. He could have said that “time is the measure of relative change”. That is a more fundamental and universal truth. But no doubt, the question was relatively new to him and his response was understandable and not really wrong, just not totally precise - yet.

It seems that the world wants to stop all thought at the “enlightenment era” as though all truth to be found was found and is irrefutable, “YOU can’t know anything THEY didn’t already know!!”. Well sorry, but “Homey don’t play that game”. They were in an “Enlighten-ing Era” but never really woke up before wandering off into dreams and fantasies of world conquest and are now dreaming of their glory - “day-dreaming” as the evening fades to night.

Get the thoughts straight (a proper ontology) and everything gets straight (and pretty quickly).

Arminius:

James S Saint:

Arminius:

I think the subject/object dualism is one of the fundamental problems. Heidegger as the last great philosopher tried to overcome the problem with his „Existenz(ial)-Ontologie“ („existenc[e]ial ontology“), also called „Fundamentalontologie“ („fundamental ontology“), especially with his concept ›In-der-Welt-Sein‹ (›To-Be-in-the-World‹) as an existential of human beings’ ›Dasein‹, as a human existence in the world. I really don’t know whether Heidegger succeeded in that case. Probably it is not possible to resolve that problem.

So that I don’t have to guess, what do you think the confusion or “problem” is?.

I think that the subject/object dualism is one of the greatest philosophical problems - perhaps even the greatest.

How can we and especially each of us ever experience whether the subjective or the objective side is the “truth”?

What makes me sure that I and the experiences I make with myself “really” exist, or the world and the experiences I make with it “really” exist? And especially: Which of both sides is true, or are both true? Which? (1.) The subjective one? (2.) The objective one? (3.) Both?

Do I think, or does the world think in me, or are both sides true? Is the world my will and my representation / idea (cp. Arthur Schopenhauer, “Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung” [“The World as Will and Representation”], 1818), or merely nothing but my thoughts, or both?